hobbie8046 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 "I want the ball, and I'm gonna score!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightbird Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Weather forecast still callin for rain on saturday afternoon. If this turns into an old-fashioned muddy slugfest, it's to our advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 That said, their receivers are vastly overrated. We should worry about Hasselbeck's ability to throw it, but not really their receivers abilities to do anything after they catch it. (Oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please! PLEASE let them not worry about our receivers!!) Our receivers are overrated? Overrated by who? Most analyses, especially around here, don't rate them very high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 They're not as good as they were in 2005, and we are better than we were in 2005. Is it enough to close the gap? I think so, but we'll have to wait until Saturday to see. The gap in '05 wasn't that huge to begin with, although I did think they got hosed a few times in the SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aghar Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 I only give so much weight to stats. You cannot ignore the fact that Hasselbeck is a VERY good QB. He has been consistent the past few years putting up solid numbers with and without a running game to back him up. I'm exited about this game and I really like our chances but I think we should overlook a few things, in order of priority. 1 - Homefield advantage. It is what it is people. We, as Skins fans, would love to have a home playoff game to show the world what it means to play us in the playoffs and make it as loud as possible for the opposition. Now, Seattle has done it before, and has shown that they give their team that advantage by being loud as hell. Their record at home speaks for itself, no matter their opponent. 2 - Hasselbeck. Like I said above, he has been solid and given time will pick a defense apart. I can only hope that GW has a gameplan drawn up to shutdown Hasselbeck(the #1 threat to our D) like he has been shutting down the opponents #1 threat the past few weeks. 3 - Hawks Defense. While I may be a homer I still believe our defense is playing at a higher level. This defense CAN put pressure on Collins via their front four as well as from their blitz packages. It will be up to Collins to recognize where the pressure is coming from and make them pay. He has been able to do so so far, against better defenses(imo), like the Giants and Cowboys. I hope he can continue. No where, and I mean no where, should the Seattle WRs be considered a threat. This is a case of where the QB makes the WRs better. Not the other way around. Attack Hasselbeck and make the WRs an afterthought. I don't think their WRs are "overrated". I don't think they're good. Period. That said, if we give Hasselbeck all day long to throw the ball these WRs will look good because anyone can get open if the QB has all day to throw. As for comparing the '05 teams. It doesn't effect this game at all but: Skins 05' < Skins 07' Hawks 05' > Hawks 07' Go SKINS! :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Im worried more about their pass rush then their pass attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jthor99 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Im very concerned about the tempo Seattle uses with its offense. Its something we really haven't seen this year. I also dont want to count out there running game. Holmgren knows that to be successful they are going to have to run the football to set up the playaction attack, which Matt Hasselbeck is very good at. Its going to be very interesting to see if our defense can take away that west coast offense they bring to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins fan1010 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 We should win this despite their homefield advantage, but proposing they have earned their notable success the last five years simply by way of a "weak division" is lazy and under-informed analysis IMO. Sorry, Friend. I don't think there is a team in this league that wouldn't want to play six games in that division. And, if you read the whole post, you would have learned that they played eight games--half of their schedule--against the league's worst Ds, not just the bad Ds in their division. And, you would have learned that when they played top Ds they weren't very good. I haven't read that anywhere else..but that's what you get when you're a little less informed and lazier than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins fan1010 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 would the max sum be 96? 32 teams ranked times 3??? You cannot have three teams ranked last; only one. Then you'd have one ranked next-to-last, etc. Sums to 93. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins fan1010 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 One could also argue that BECAUSE the Seahawks passed for so many yards vs their division opponents, their division opponents hence had poor defensive rankings... Absolutely. But, I didn't have the time or inclination to deduct what the Seahawks did to all of their opponents and then re-rank the teams. A quicker way was to broadly examine what they did against good Ds and what they did against bad ones, so that is what I did. They played half of their games against the weakest Ds in the league; way more than any other team. Four of their games against the weakest Ds were intra-division and four were outside of their division. They played four against top-ten Ds. If I had deducted and re-ranked, we would have drawn the same conclusion. The numbers speak for themselves. Stats can be misleading... Yes. And, sometimes they can be very telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaTwelve Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 If this turns into an old-fashioned muddy slugfest, it's to our advantage. Field turf doesn't get muddy ... bloody, maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.